A function of innovation systems approach for analysing the roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation

A function of innovation systems approach for analysing the roles of intermediaries in

eco-innovation

Wisdom Kanda

*, Pablo del Río Gonzaléz

, Olof Hjelm

and Dzamila Bienkowska

1

_{Environmental Technology and Management, Department of Management and Engineering,}

Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden.

2

_{Institute for Public Policies and Goods, Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC),}

C/Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid, Spain.

3

Project, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Department of Management and Engineering,

Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden.

*Corresponding author: E-mail address: wisdom.kanda@liu.se Tel.: +46 (0)13281696

Abstract

This article draws from two bodies of literature, innovation intermediaries and technological

innovation systems, to develop an approach for analysing the functions of intermediaries in

eco-innovation. The link between the functions of innovation intermediaries and the functions of

technological innovation systems has seldom been explicitly established in the scientific discourse

and thus this article contributes to theoretical development in both literatures. To the technological

innovation systems literature, this article addresses the lack of attention to the functions of

innovation intermediaries who are a critical part in the formation of networks and also contribute to

a number of innovation system functions. To the innovation intermediary literature, the functional

approach advocates for a synthesis and consensus building in the literature regarding intermediary

functions in view of the several redundancies and ambiguities on the subject matter. Empirical

operationalization of the analytical approach including methodological choices from case studies in

Region Scania, Sweden and North Rhine Westphalia, Germany are also discussed. The results of our

analysis show that the functions of the innovation intermediaries are particularly relevant for the

overall goals of an innovation system as compared to the configuration of intermediary actors.

Particular challenges with a functional approach in this context include the difficulties of establishing

a causal relation between the support functions of intermediaries and eco-innovation outcomes in

firms.

Keywords: Analytical approach; Technological Innovation Systems; Innovation; Systems approach

1

Introduction

There is increasing demand from policy makers and consumers for firms to develop, diffuse or adopt

innovations that create win-win situations which maintain or improve economic competitiveness

while securing environmental sustainability. To this end, eco-innovations, broadly defined as

innovations that improve environmental performance (Carrillo-Hermosilla et al., 2009) are essential.

Despite the potential benefits for firms engaged with eco-innovations, for example cost savings

through increased energy efficiency, realizing competitive advantage through successful new

products or services, eco-innovation can be stifled by market failures (Jaffe et al., 2005) as well as

system failures (Bleda and del Río, 2013). To tackle some of these challenges, firms often need

linkages with external organizations such as universities, business development organizations,

incubators, financers and private consultants to get hold of and exploit essential resources (e.g.

knowledge, networks, finances)to effectively eco-innovate (Hjelm, 2011). These external resources

complement firms’ internal capabilities such as R&D activities, financing, top-management

commitment and employee skills in eco-innovation. Several previous studies highlight the relevance

of both internal and external resources for eco-innovation, with a few pointing to the particular

intensity of external linkages and resources for eco-innovation compared to other innovations

(Cainelli et al., 2015). This is inferred from the presence of interdependencies on knowledge, skills

and resources as well as the need to complement internal firm resources with competences from

different domains during eco-innovation. We refer to such external organizations as intermediaries

to connect to previous literature even though we are aware that some scholars refer to such

organizations as third parties, intermediary firms, bridgers, brokers, superstructure organizations and

knowledge intensive business services (KIBS).

Some attention has been given to the role of such intermediaries in the innovation literature (see

e.g.Howells, 2006; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008; Klewitz et al., 2012). Howells (2006) through a literature

review and case studies in the United Kingdom developed a typology for the different roles of

intermediaries in innovation. Klewitz et al. (2012) analysed an intermediary based program

-“Ecoprofit®” and intermediaries working with this program with the aim to introduce the concept of

sustainable development through eco-innovation among German manufacturing small and

medium-size enterprises (SMEs). Other scholars have analysed intermediaries in particular sectors such as

agriculture (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008), healthcare (Boon et al., 2011) and energy supply (Kivimaa,

2014) with an overarching interest in understanding and improving their intermediation roles in

innovation. However, researchers and policy analysts face different challenges when it comes to

analysing the roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation. First there is very little scientific studies on

the particular topic (Kanda et al., 2014) and second, there are several redundancies and confusions

regarding the functions and types of innovation intermediaries in the literature (Klerkx and Leeuwis,

2008). This can be partly attributed to the different terminologies used by scholars to describe

intermediation functions, the different types of intermediaries and the contexts within which they

operate, not forgetting the broad nature of eco-innovation. These limitations make it difficult to

provide robust recommendations for intermediaries and policy makers.

Thus critical questions for practitioners and researchers include the analysis of options which

contribute to improve the support functions of intermediaries in order to foster eco-innovation

(Klewitz et al., 2012). Previous literature on innovation intermediation provides relevant starting

points for discussing such questions; however to further such discussions, advancements are needed

in analytical approaches and conceptual frameworks. In this case, the innovation intermediary

literature could benefit from literature such as the technological innovation systems which has

gained prominence in the study of innovation processes and their related policy over the past three

1

decades. A core argument of the innovation systems approach and, in particular, the technological

innovation systems (TIS) approach is that, the direction and outcomes of the innovation process are

influenced by an interaction between private firms, other types of organizations and institutional

structures (Markard and Truffer, 2008a). A key advancement in this approach is the emphasis on

system functions as a basis for identification of system weaknesses and policy recommendations

(Bergek et al., 2008). To the best of our knowledge, the role of intermediaries in eco-innovation has

not been analysed using a (TIS) approach, which makes explicit the dynamics between system

functions and policy recommendations while uncovering the structure, functions and weaknesses in

an innovation system.

Motivated by these limitations and opportunities, the aim of this article is to contribute to the

innovation intermediation and technological innovation systems literature in at least two ways: (1) to

present an approach for analysing the roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation (2) to illustrate the

operationalization of the analytical approach including methodological considerations based on

empirical case studies. Accordingly, the article is structured as follows. In Section 2, we discuss

previous literature on innovation intermediaries and technological innovations systems, providing a

connection between them as a basis for developing our analytical approach. In Section 3, we describe

in steps in the analytical approach. In Section 4, we illustrate the operationalization of the analytical

approach using case studies in Sweden and Germany. Section 5 offers conclusions and further

research.

2

Intermediaries and Technological Innovation Systems

2.1

The literature on intermediaries in eco-innovation

In the context of this article, we refer to intermediaries as organization that assists firms in the

eco-innovation process by providing external impulse, motivation, advice and other specific support often

by acting as an agent or broker between two or more parties. Previous literature on intermediaries

can be grouped into various categories. On one side of the spectrum are studies that focus on

intermediaries in innovation in general (e.g. Boon et al., 2011; Howells, 2006), and on the other side

are studies dealing with intermediaries in relation to particular category of innovations e.g.

eco-innovation (Klewitz et al., 2012). Under the umbrella of eco-eco-innovation, previous studies have

analysed intermediaries engaged in sustainable system transitions (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008; van

Lente et al., 2003) and energy systems transition (Kivimaa, 2014). These previous studies contain

several roles of intermediaries in (eco)-innovation which could contribute to the functions of

innovation systems in the technological innovation systems literature even though the connection

between these streams of literature is yet to be established.

Narrowing down, conventional knowledge suggests that SMEs are important candidates for

developing and diffusing eco-innovations(Keskin et al., 2013) based on their particular characteristics

such as informal ways of communication, flexibility and lean organizational structures. However such

firms face challenges such as addressing multiple goals in innovation (e.g. environmental and

economic ambitions), difficulty in creating customer value based on eco-innovations and inability to

internalise all elements of the innovation process (Keskin et al., 2013). These particularities aside,

eco-innovation can be a complex and challenging activity for many SMEs due to resource constraints

in terms of personnel, knowledge and financial capital (Klewitz et al., 2012). Other managerial and

structural challenges mean that sometimes eco-innovation and sustainability issues are dealt with in

a marginalised way with little or no personnel commitment, and an ad hoc informal approach(Noci

and Verganti, 1999; Scozzi et al., 2005). A small company will often lack some the competence

needed to tackle the challenges related to eco-innovation (Hjelm, 2011). Hence, linkages are needed

with external actors to get hold of the required resources and capabilities to exploit eco-innovation

in an effective way (Hjelm, 2011; Keskin et al., 2013; Klewitz et al., 2012) not forgetting the

importance of internal firm resources (Cainelli et al., 2015).

Cooperation with external public, private and non-governmental actors is deemed important to

increase the innovative capacity of SMEs (Cainelli et al., 2015; Klewitz and Hansen, 2013).

Cooperation has been shown as a main driver for eco-innovation in the literature (see, e.g., de

Marchi, 2012; del Río et al., 2013). In particular, consistent government support is regarded as a

significant enabler for developing and diffusing eco-innovations (Boons et al., 2013; Horbach,

2008).This can be partly attributed to the limited interest of private actors to act as catalyst for

sustainability transitions(Turnheim and Geels, 2012) due to both market and system failures (Bleda

and del Río, 2013; Jaffe et al., 2005; Rennings, 2000). Thus, government affiliated intermediaries have

been found to provide an alternative complementary role to business-based intermediaries whose

actions are typically profit-driven (Kivimaa, 2014). Previous literature identifies financial institutions,

universities, incubators, public funders, cluster initiatives, local authorities and business development

organizations as important governmental actors which could assist firms to achieve their desired

objectives in eco-innovation (del Río González, 2005; del Río et al., 2013; Fichter et al., 2013). The

overarching objective of innovation intermediaries is to assist firms in the development, diffusion

and use of (eco)-innovations. The support activities offered by such organisations can be divided into

two broad categories as ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ or configuration-oriented and process-oriented support

respectively (Norrman, 2008). The hard support includes provision of infrastructure, proximity to

universities and science parks, and other in-kind funding. The soft kinds of support include business

advice, coaching, education and networking activities. However, there are few literatures which

attempt to provide a comprehensive typology on the different intermediation support functions in

innovation. Howells (2006) lists ten functions of intermediaries in innovation as: foresight and

diagnostics; scanning and information processing; knowledge processing and

combination/recombination; gatekeeping and brokering; testing and validation; accreditation;

validation and regulation; protecting the results; commercialisation; evaluation of outcomes. These

functions relate to some of the functions of innovation systems identified in the technology

innovation system literature which is the focus of the next sub-section.

2.2

Technological Innovation Systems (TIS)

The systems of innovation (SI) approach (see Carlsson et al., 2002 for an overview) stresses that

innovations are not developed and implemented in isolation but within a technological and

socio-cultural context. It focuses on the importance and interdependencies of actors, networks,

institutions, cumulative learning processes and spatial and technological characteristics (Edquist,

2005). It adopts a holistic perspective and considers phenomena such as path dependency, lock-in,

interdependence, non-linearity and co-evolution (Edquist, 2005; Markard and Truffer, 2008b). This

approach can inform how innovation occurs in relation to particular technologies, industrial sectors

and specific national contexts, what system failures may be occurring and how innovation may be

influenced by incentives and policies (Foxon and Andersen, 2009).

Following Unruh (2000, p. 819), technological systems are defined as “inter-related components

connected in a network or infrastructure that includes physical, social and informational elements”.

An innovation system consists of three elements (Malerba, 2005; Woolthuis et al., 2005): technology

and related knowledge and skills, networks of actors and institutions. Networks of actors develop

and implement new knowledge and technology, within their institutional context. They are necessary

to bring about substantial shifts in interconnected technologies (Tsoutsos and Stamboulis, 2005). For

an innovation system to be successful in developing and implementing technologies, these three

building blocks, which coevolve in time, need to be aligned.

This approach has already been applied to analyse the emergence and/or uptake of eco-innovations,

particularly in the realm of renewable energy systems (see Foxon et al., 2005; Jacobsson, 2008;

Jacobsson and Bergek, 2004; Walz and Schleich, 2009; Åstrand and Neij, 2006). These papers stress

that a shift to renewable energy technology systems is a complex process which involves changes in

the aforementioned elements of an innovation system. They identify the system failures related to

the development, commercialisation and diffusion of renewable energy technologies.

The SI tries to cope with some of the drawbacks of the conventional perspective such as a market

approach, which has been much criticised for its conceptualisation of technological change. The

critics go in three directions. The systemic approach provides corrections to those criticisms and

suggests policy implications that are different from (although not necessarily contradictory to) those

derived from the conventional approach:

1) Feedbacks between stages. In particular, innovation and diffusion are not sequential phases, but

learning and future innovations depend on experiences made during market diffusion. i.e., the

creation of a market for renewable technologies feeds back into investments in R&D.

2) Path dependency and lock-in. One drawback of studies based on mainstream environmental

economics is the fact that they do not look at system changes and interdependencies, although such

system changes are necessary to reach long-term emission reduction goals (Rogge et al., 2011). In

contrast, the systemic perspective acknowledges that barriers to renewable energy are systemic

(also termed system failures, see (Nill and Kemp, 2009)). These systemic barriers lead to lock-in

through a path-dependent process driven by technological and institutional internal returns to scale.

Technologies are not only linked to other technologies, but are also interrelated with the cultural and

institutional aspects of their environment (Maréchal, 2007). “Carbon lock-in” has been used to

denominate the persistent dominance of high-carbon technologies (in spite of the existence of

low-carbon ones)

. Unruh (2000, p.817) defines carbon lock-in as the “interlocking technological,

institutional and social forces that can create policy inertia towards the mitigation of global climate

change”. This lock-in occurs through a “path-dependent process driven by technological and

institutional increasing returns to scale”. Dynamic economies of scale and learning effects are a

major source of lock-in. R&D investments and diffusion provide a source of improvement and cost

reductions for existing technologies. The later effect takes place because diffusion allows

technologies to benefit from learning effects and dynamic economies of scale. Emerging, more

2

A stream of the economic literature on climate change mitigation has applied an evolutionary approach with the aim to emphasize the inertia in current technological systems (del Río and Unruh, 2007; Foxon et al., 2005; Kemp, 1996; Maréchal, 2007; Rip and Kemp, 1998; Unruh, 2000, 2002).

expensive technologies may fall into a vicious circle: they are not adopted because they are too

expensive and they are too expensive because they are not adopted.

3) Barriers to technological change are multifaceted and the price factor is only one of the factors

affecting technological changes. Technological change is endogenous to an economic system in

which there are both inducement and blocking mechanisms. Changes in relative prices are only one

of the inducement mechanisms. In addition to the demand and technology factors, this approach

underlines the importance of several factors (characteristics of innovation, actors, networks and

institutions, including regulations) (Suurs and Hekkert, 2009). These factors influence each other,

highlighting the importance of feedback mechanisms and cumulative causation processes. Therefore,

price signals are necessary albeit not sufficient to encourage innovation in new technological

systems.

The SI approach has been applied at the national, regional and the sector levels. A particularly

promising perspective is the technological innovation system (TIS) perspective. A TIS is defined as a

dynamic socio-technical system of agents that, by interacting within a particular institutional

infrastructure, are involved in the development, diffusion, and use of a specific technology (Carlsson

and Stankiewicz, 1991). A TIS approach makes explicit the relationships between innovation

dynamics and policy.

The assessment in terms of system functions is one of the main approaches of the systems of

innovation literature and the TIS in particular. Other innovation system studies have placed more

emphasis on structural analyses (Carlsson et al., 2002; Jacobsson and Johnson, 2000) and have been

criticized for being insufficient in understanding innovation and technology change dynamics

(Hekkert et al., 2007). The authors argue that, in order to understand the determinants of change,

insights in the present (static) structure of innovation systems is not enough but rather an

understanding of the activities that take place within the system.

The functional perspective in TIS centres on key dynamic processes and properties of TIS (functions)

that contribute to the development and performance of a TIS in order to establish a link between

weaknesses in these processes and policy action (Bergek et al., 2015; Bergek and Jacobsson, 2003;

Jacobsson and Johnson, 2000; Negro et al., 2007) The functional perspective allows researchers to

look into TIS in eco-innovations and their functions, identify specific weaknesses of TIS and provide

useful lessons for policy makers to tackle the barriers to eco-innovation. Indeed, the effect of

regulation on innovation depends on how regulation influences those functions.

Different innovation systems can be assessed and compared in terms of the functions they fulfil in

order to derive policy recommendations to support the development of a specific technology

(Hekkert et al., 2007; Negro et al., 2007). Functions are emergent properties of the interplay between

actors and institutions (Markard and Truffer, 2008b). The functions approach identifies those

properties of a technological innovation system that are needed in order to successfully introduce

sustainable energy technologies (see Hekkert and Negro, 2009). In this paper, we use the

operationalization of the functional approach made by (Bergek et al., 2008)and (Hekkert et al., 2007)

(see table 1).

Function Description

1. Knowledge development and diffusion.

This function captures the breadth and depth of the current knowledge base of the TIS, and how knowledge is diffused and combined in the system. Various types of knowledge serve as inputs for innovation, including R&D and learning effects. 2.- Guidance of

the search.

This refers to activities that can affect the visibility of specific needs among technology users and the incentives for the organizations to enter the TIS. 3.-

Entrepreneurial experimentation

Entrepreneurial experimentation implies a probing into new technologies and applications, with successes and failures.

4.- Market formation

Market formation normally goes through three phases with quite distinct features: nursing, bridging and mass markets (see text).

5.- Legitimation Legitimacy refers to social acceptance and compliance with relevant institutions. The new technology needs to be considered desirable by relevant actors in order for resources to be mobilized, for demand to form and for actors in the new TIS to acquire political strength. This process is complicated by competition from adversaries defending the existing TIS. The purposeful creation of legitimacy by lobbying networks counteracts resistance to change.

6.- Resource mobilization

This refers to the extent to which the TIS mobilizes competence/human capital, financial capital and complementary assets in order to make the various processes in the innovation system possible.

Source : adapted from (del Río and Bleda, 2012) based on (Bergek et al., 2008; Hekkert et al., 2007)

Previous research has demonstrated that the functions approach is well-equipped to carry out

comparative policy research (Coenen et al., 2010). The TIS approach has also received several

criticisms; see (Markard et al., 2015) for a discussion on relevant responses and improvement

options. The focus of policy in this framework is hence to identify and address problems that prevent

the fulfilment of functions and to intervene to make sure that they are fulfilled. The lower the

maturity of technologies, the greater the requirements for the fulfilment of system functions. More

novel innovations require greater change in all system functions.

System functions reinforce each other over time, thereby resulting in virtuous cycles in cumulative

causation processes (Hekkert et al., 2007; Jacobsson and Bergek, 2004), which are needed for new

technologies to penetrate the market and for the TIS to actually form (Hekkert and Negro, 2009;

Suurs and Hekkert, 2009). Cumulative causation suggests that system functions may reinforce each

other over time, thereby resulting in a virtuous cycle (Hekkert et al., 2007; Jacobsson and Bergek,

2004). The diffusion of eco-innovations into the incumbent production systems requires virtuous

circles to be established between the different functions (Hekkert and Negro, 2009; Suurs and

Hekkert, 2009). This is more relevant the more radical these innovations are.

Market formation has been presented as a central function in the development of a TIS. Market

formation sets in motion learning processes and creates the aforementioned virtuous cycles between

functions, actors and stages of technological change. Policies supporting eco-innovation directly

affect the market creation function, which indirectly affects the other functions.

Market formation consists of three different phases. In the very early phase, “nursing markets” need

to evolve so that a “learning space” is opened up, in which the TIS can find a place to form. The

technology is still developing (i.e., immature) and the size of the market is very limited. Learning, in

general terms, refers to building new competencies and establishing new skills, and innovation is

rooted in various forms of learning (Wieczorek et al., 2010). There are three main learning processes,

learning-by-doing (LBD), learning-by-using (LBU) and learning-by-interacting (LBI)

. The later stresses

the role of networking, which helps actors to access new sources of ideas and increase their

innovative capabilities (Wieczorek et al., 2010). The development of a broad and aligned network of

niche actors in the experiment (firms, users, policymakers, entrepreneurs, etc.) is a success factor for

governance of niche experiments (Raven, 2005). The review of existing policy insights in the

literature on TIS reveals the importance of learning in networks of stakeholders (Coenen et al 2011).

Instruments should try to stimulate these interactions.

This nursing market may give way to a “bridging market”, which allows for volumes and market

interactions to increase and for an enlargement of the TIS in terms of number of actors. The

adaptation processes initiated in the nursing stage start to consolidate, and users begin to adopt and

use the new technology. Finally, in a successful TIS, mass markets (in terms of volume) evolve

(Bergek et al., 2008). In this stage, the technology becomes institutionalised as it is widely applied by

many users (Dewald and Truffer, 2011).

Poor connectivity (networking) between actors is identified as a blocking mechanism in

eco-innovations with respect to legitimacy. This has been the case at least in the energy sector with

respect to renewable energy technologies (Negro et al 2010). Interactions between actors are crucial

both as a source of knowledge exchange, learning and innovation and as a source of formation of

advocacy coalitions and, thus, legitimacy (see Wieczorek et al., 2010). Therefore, the extent to which

a given policy favours a diversity of actors and new entrants into the TIS is crucial to enhance LBI

effects and to strengthen the power of emergent advocacy coalitions between actors, including

producers, equipment manufacturers, public decision-makers, financial institutions, consumers and

NGOs, that, in turn, enhance the legitimacy of support (i.e., function 5).

New technologies and new actors gradually change the institutional environment in which they are

embedded. Advocacy coalitions result from the sequential interaction between support, market

creation, stages of technological change and actors. Indeed, new entrants and coalitions between

different types of actors have been shown to be crucial in the emergence of new technologies within

TIS (Meyer, 2007; Walz and Schleich, 2008) and in the social acceptability and political feasibility of

policies.

3

Learning-by-doing (LBD) (Arrow, 1962) refers to the repetitious manufacturing of a product leading to improvements in the production process. Learning-by-using (LBU) are improvements in the technologies as a result of feedback from user experiences into the innovation process (Rosenberg, 1982). Learning-by-interacting (LBI) takes place as a result of the network interactions between actors(Junginger et al., 2005; Lundvall, 2009).

2.3

Linking intermediaries to the functions of innovation systems

As discussed in the previous section, the literature on innovation systems and, particularly,

technological innovation systems (TIS) considers several functions which an innovation system should

perform in order to stimulate the development, diffusion and use of technologies (see Bergek et al.,

2008). Although the TIS literature identifies actors, networks and institutions as constituting an

innovation system around a particular technology, the literature does not explicitly recognise

innovation intermediaries as key actors even though the formation of networks between various

actors and institutions, resource mobilization and market formation among others requires some

intermediation. Arguably, the TIS approach does not explicitly consider intermediaries as main

facilitators of networking leading to innovation in general and eco-innovation in particular. More

specifically, so far there has been little interaction between the two bodies of literature i.e. the

technological innovation systems and the innovation intermediaries. Establishing such a link would

allow us to highlight the contributions of innovation intermediaries to several of the innovation

system functions identified in the TIS literature. The connection can be based on the fact that the

“functions” play a crucial role in both literatures. Howells (2006) identifies ten functions of

intermediaries in innovation which could contribute to some of the functions of innovation systems.

Even though, we anticipate the functions of innovation intermediaries to share several similarities to

the functions of intermediaries for innovation, we also expect some particular functions for

eco-innovation after empirically applying our analytical approach. This is due to the unique characteristics

of eco-innovation such as its positive environmental impact, the influence of regulation and the

double externality problem (del Río et al., 2010; Rennings, 2000). In table 2 below, we combine

previous innovation intermediary literature reviewed in section 2.1 with the functions of innovation

systems discussed in section 2.2.

Table 2. Functions of innovation intermediaries related to functions of innovation systems

Source: Own elaboration based on (del Río and Bleda, 2012) and (Howells, 2006)

Innovation system functions Innovation Intermediary functions Knowledge development and diffusion Guidance of the search Entrepreneurial experimentation Market formation

Legitimation Resource mobilization

Foresight and diagnostics

Foresight, forecasting and technology roadmapping Scanning and

information processing

Information scanning and identification and selection of potential collaboration partners Knowledge processing and combination Helping to combine knowledge of two or more partners including the generation of in-house knowledge Gatekeeping and brokering

Negotiating and deal making

Testing and validating Testing, diagnostics,

analysis and inspection. Piloting and prototyping. Scale-up Testing, diagnostics, analysis and inspection. Piloting and prototyping. Scale-up Accreditation Specification setter or providing standards advice. Formal standards setting and verification. Voluntary and de facto standards Validating and regulation Formal regulation. Informal arbiter between different groups Protecting the results

Commercialisation Market research and business planning. Support in the selling and commercialis ation process. Early stage capital Evaluating of outcomes

From table 2, we can see how intermediary functions relate to innovation systems functions. A

concentration of the innovation intermediary functions can be observed to be related to (i)

legitimation (ii) resource mobilization and (iii) knowledge development and diffusion, innovation

system functions. Through this link between innovation intermediaries and the TIS literature this

article contributes to both the TIS literature and the innovation intermediary literature. Regarding

the TIS literature, this article addresses the framework’s lack of attention to the functions of

innovation intermediaries which are a critical part of an innovation system and contribute to several

system level functions using firm intermediation. To the innovation intermediary literature, the

functional approach adopted in this article advocates for consensus building and a synthesis of

intermediary functions as has been done for the TIS literature.

3

The analytical approach

In this section, we elaborate on the analytical approach we have developed to analyse the functions

of intermediaries in eco-innovation. An overview of the main steps of our analytical approach is

presented in Figure 1. The analytical approach is inspired by a scheme of analysis in the technological

innovations systems literature for analysing the functional dynamics of technological innovation

systems (see Bergek et al., 2008), together with innovation intermediary literature (e.g Howells,

2006) and eco-innovation literature (e.g Carrillo-Hermosilla et al., 2009; OECD, 2009). As depicted in

Figure 1, the first step involves defining the focus of the analysis based on the study’s aims and

objectives. Thereafter, key intermediaries relevant for the study’s focus are identified including their

networks and institutions backing them. In order to understand the roles of the intermediaries in

eco-innovation, step 3 focuses on their support functions which cover their actions and activities

assigned to or required of them in their support of firms engaged in eco-innovation. Since an end

goal of the analytical approach is to provide practical recommendations for intermediaries and policy

makers, an assessment of the support functions is prioritised in step 4. Based on the assessment

outcomes, step 5 discusses potential recommendations including identification of best practices. The

following sub-section provides an elaboration of the various steps including methodological

3. Mapping support functions of intermediaries 4. Assessing support functions for eco-innovation 5. Recommendations for intermediaries and

policy makers 1. Defining the study focus 2. Mapping key intermediaries

Figure 1: The analytical approach. Source author’s elaboration, inspired by (Bergek et al., 2008)

Step 1: Defining the study focus

Fundamental to the analysis of any system is the goal and scope definition. This ensures that the

study is consistent with its aims and objectives, and also provides a context for the study. The study

focus has to be defined from the start and clearly stated, even though this can be refined along the

way as the boundaries of the case become clearer following an in-depth analysis. Drawing inspiration

from the TIS literature, Carlsson and Stankiewicz (1991)defines a technological innovation system as

“networks of agents interacting in a specific economic/industrial area under a particular institutional

infrastructure or set of infrastructures and involved in the generation, diffusion and utilization of

technology”. They further emphasize that technological systems are defined in terms of knowledge

flows rather that flows of goods and services. Coenen and Díaz López (2010) and (Bergek et al., 2015)

suggest a system boundary could be defined on the basis of (1) geography (2), technological fields,

(3) product areas (4) activities (5) industry sectors or politics. A careful scope definition is important

in at least two ways: first it helps to restrict the number of plausible explanation factors for an

observed phenomenon and it also allows for the comparison of different case studies. With this

understanding, the boundaries of the study can be national, regional or even international i.e.

geographically defined. In other instances, the focus can cut across several sectors such as

manufacturing, transportation, food and energy. An innovation, or the knowledge it embodies, is

hardly ever embedded in just the institutional infrastructure of a single nation or region, since in the

current globalized world, the relevant knowledge base for most technologies originates from various

geographical areas all over the world. Thus, by taking a specific technology as a starting point, the

technological system approach cuts through both the geographical and the sectoral dimensions

(Hekkert et al., 2007). As discussed by (Bergek et al., 2008), setting the appropriate study focus from

the start can be a difficult task because the analyst may initially not be familiar with the case to be

analysed. Therefore, a logical strategy is to start from a broad focus and then narrowing down as the

understanding of the case increases.

Step 2: Mapping key intermediaries

After the focus of the study is defined, identifying key intermediaries available for eco-innovators

within the study boundaries represents the next logical step. Therefore, the objective in this step is

to identify and describe key intermediaries, their networks and the institutions under which they

operate within the study boundaries defined in step 1. Intermediaries can have a general focus,

supporting all kinds of innovations or focus specifically on supporting eco-innovations. Both types of

intermediaries are accessible to eco-innovators and may influence their eco-innovation activities and

therefore, should be identified for further analysis. The study objectives may make it

recommendable that the analyst focuses on particular types of intermediaries e.g. universities,

financers or a combination of different intermediaries forming an intermediary support system e.g.

universities, incubators, business development organizations or even an intermediary support

program with different participating intermediaries. The methods for identification of such actors,

their networks and institutions can be based on existing knowledge and literature (see Bergek et al.,

2008). Relevant methods include interviews, discussions with industry experts and firms who receive

support from such intermediaries, and review of information from industry associations such as

exhibitions, company directories and catalogues. Often, these methods can and should be used in

combination.

Step 3: Mapping the support functions of intermediaries

In step 3, the support functions provided by the intermediaries to eco-innovators are identified and

described. Support functions refer to all actions and activities of intermediaries intended to assist

firms in the development, diffusion and adoption of eco-innovations. In identifying and describing

the functions of the intermediaries the analyst can benefit from various bodies of literature. For

example the technological innovation system literature synthesises seven functions of innovation

systems some of which are relevant intermediary functions (see 2.2, Table 1). The innovation

intermediary literature also elaborates several such functions as discussed 2.1. The support functions

of intermediaries contributes to some of the innovation system functions and could be linked as

shown in section 2.3, Table 2. At this stage of the analysis, the focus is simply to describe using both

qualitative and quantitative data how the set of functions outlined are currently fulfilled by the

activities of the intermediary(ies).

Step 4: Assessing the support functions for eco-innovation

An assessment of the support functions of intermediaries is necessary in order to provide

recommendations for practitioners and policy makers. At this stage the analyst has a good overview

of the intermediary(ies) under study including a description of their various support functions for

eco-innovation. However, this description does not give insights as to how the support functions are

received and utilised by the target firms in eco-innovation. Also a function being weakly performed

by an intermediary could be the main responsibility of another intermediary and thus cannot be

concluded as a system weakness. For example, the function of knowledge development and diffusion

can be better suited for intermediaries such as universities, than for business development

organizations. Furthermore even if a function is missing in the activities of an intermediary it can be

provided by private intermediaries such as consultants since they are supposed to complement each

other. In short, it is quite challenging to absolutely establish a weakness or missing functions in the

activities of the intermediaries without a complete overview of different support actors (both private

and public) and their support activities. Assessing the impact of intermediaries in difficult given the

intermediate effect of their activities on the business value chain(Howells, 2006). We propose that

the support functions of the intermediaries under study be analysed based on the “input” to and

“output” from eco-innovations and the “impacts” of the eco-innovation similar to (OECD, 2009). In

addition, the support functions should be assed in a broader innovation system to see how these

intermediaries contribute to the fulfilment of these innovation system functions (see Table 1) and

(del Río and Bleda, 2012). Below is a set of points to asses intermediaries support functions:

•

Input measures include e.g. R&D expenditure, R&D personnel, number of networking

meetings and participants in support activities.

•

Output measures can be direct in terms of number of eco-innovations, sales of new

products and services from eco-innovation. Other output measures are intermediate such as

company satisfaction and perceived benefits from participating in intermediation activities.

•

Impact measures include resource savings in terms of material, energy and finance.

•

Knowledge development and diffusion can be measures using private R&D investments,

patents, learning curve

•

Guidance of the search can be measures using network size and intensity over time, number

of new entrants, policy risks (risk premium), network size and intensity, private R&D

investments

•

Entrepreneurial experimentation can be measured using number and types of new

entrants, number of niches created for immature technologies

•

Market formation can be measured using effectiveness in deployment, number of niches

created for immature technologies

•

Legitimacy has relevant indicators such as rise and growth of interest groups, social

acceptability, strength of lobby actions

•

Resource mobilizations can be measured using private R&D investments, policy risks

Data for measuring these impacts can be obtained from widely available generic sources and also by

conducting surveys both with intermediaries and firms specifically to measure eco-innovation. A

particularly challenge with surveys is getting a significant response rate. Survey questions can be sent

through intermediaries to their clients to potentially enhance the response rate. The analyst can also

rely on secondary data which evaluates the satisfaction of firms receiving intermediary support

activities.

Step 5: Specify practitioner and policy recommendations

In this step, the focus is on providing relevant recommendations for intermediaries and policy

makers interested in stimulating the development, diffusion and use of eco-innovations. The

recommendations should be based on identified gaps and deficiencies in the current intermediation

functions with respect to eco-innovation and system functions. In specifying this practical

recommendation we suggest at least two aspects of intermediation to be considered:

(i) The relevance of the support functions for firm level eco-innovations

(ii) The contributions of the support functions to innovation system functions

Discussions about support functions could revolve around the continuity in support, from providing

firms with handholding support in eco-innovation to leaving firms which can eco-innovative largely

on their own after initial support. Other aspects of relevance relate to proactive vs. reactive support

choices which influence very much how radical or incremental innovations are generated. Questions

about how general or specific intermediation activities should be regarding a sector and firm, types

of eco-innovations cannot be overlooked as against the resources available at the disposal of

intermediary(ies).Regarding the structure of the support system, relevant discussion points could

revolve around the synergy between the efforts of various intermediaries both public and private in

delivering their support functions. The contribution of the intermediary functions to system level

functions is also an important complement since intermediaries form part of innovation systems and

should work towards the overall system ambitions.

To provide some insights into the kind of methodological choices and challenges to expect when

using such an approach to analyse intermediation in eco-innovation, we present selected results

from our empirical case studies on business development organizations and cluster initiatives

supporting eco-innovation in Region Scania (Sweden) and North Rhine Westphalia (Germany).

4

The empirical study: analysing intermediaries in eco-innovation

Step 1-defining the study focus

As a departing point in our study, we had a very specific objective to analyse the roles of

public-owned intermediaries in eco-innovation. This was intended to both uncover system weaknesses, best

practices and also offer potential recommendations for practitioners and policy makers. We chose to

adopt a regional scope because in practise resource allocation and the support firms receive from

public-owned intermediaries were often on a regional basis. Thus we selected two regions (Scania in

Sweden and North Rhine Westphalia in Germany) as our unit of analysis. We chose Sweden and

Germany because these two countries have been consistently ranked among the top 10

eco-innovative countries(WWF, 2012, 2014)which offers us the possibility to identify good practices and

also generate learning possibilities for other regions in different countries. In addition, we also had

good contacts and access to information which is also an essential component in such case study

analysis (see Yin, 2008).

Step 2-Mapping key intermediaries

Having defined our focus, the next step was to map key intermediaries. We decided to focus on

public-owned intermediaries and one type in particular – business development organizations

including cluster initiatives for the environmental technology sector. We focused on business

development organizations and cluster initiatives because these intermediaries work with a portfolio

of different support activities such as financing, networking, fore sighting and even technical support

which is essential for having an overview on the activities of intermediaries for eco-innovation

compared to focusing on financers or universities. Another possibility could have been to focus on

private intermediaries such as consultants but their potential number and activities within a regional

scope might not be practically possible to handle using a case study approach. In addition the

literature highlights public intermediaries as particularly interested in working with sustainability

related issues compared to business oriented intermediaries which are often profit oriented

(Kivimaa, 2014). Gathering information begun by reading industry documentations and regional

reports including strategies to strengthen the innovation system. This gave a good background to the

actors, their networks and also institutions which support them for example through financing and

public mandate. At the end of this step, we developed a map of key intermediaries within the regions

and also their connections to other intermediaries and institutions.

Step 3-Mapping intermediary support functions

In the third step, we focused on the functions of the intermediaries for eco-innovation. The use of

case studies and interviews proved relevant as it enabled us to discuss deeper into the organizations

than simply reading what is provided in their websites or documents. We had identified a number of

key intermediaries both in Region Scania, Sweden and North Rhine Westphalia, Germany. To dig in

deeper into their support functions, we held interviews with employees who were actively involved

in support activities and also top level management. Details of the interviewed intermediaries in

each region are presented in Table 3 and 4 below. Interview questions revolved four themes: (i) the

organization (ii) the companies receiving support (iii) the support activities and functions and (vi)

outcomes of the support activities. Discussions about the organization itself focused the driving force

behind their foundation and strategies and how has changed over time. A discussion into their

human and financial resource allocation is also relevant since this influences the content and strategy

of their support functions. The next set of questions focused on the clients of the intermediaries. This

discussion on their client base sheds light into how the support activities are organized and the range

of support activities focused on clients developing different kinds of innovations. Interview questions

about the support activities and functions discussed for example, how new clients where

approached, how the support functions and activities were offered to clients e.g. through

networking, social meetings, workshops and in particular what support was given to companies

interested in eco-innovation. The intermediaries also face some challenges in their support activities

such as limited knowledge, resource constraints, political and technological neutrality and these

discussions are relevant for the long term existence of their support activities. Our last set of

questions focused on the outcomes of the support activities and discussions around how the support

activities are followed up by the intermediary including client satisfaction and the implementation of

outcomes of support activities.

Table 3: Studied Business development organizations including cluster initiatives in Region Scania,

Sweden

Organization

Interviewee

Comments

Sustainable

Business Hub

Project leader Research and

Development and innovation

Cleantech cluster initiative

6 employees, 130 member companies

http://www.sbhub.se/

Sector specific

Business developer

Malmö

Cleantech

City

Project manager

Support for cleantech companies

2 full-time employees, non-membership

http://www.malmocleantechcity.se/

Sector specific

Region

Scania

Development manager

Regional financer of some BDOs and CIs

http://www.skane.se/

General support

Business Manager

ALMI Scania

Innovation advisor

Support for all kinds of companies

http://www.almi.se/Skane/

General support

Table 4: Studied Business development organizations including cluster initiatives in NRW

Organization

Interviewee

Comments

The

greentech

Cluster

Principal

Cluster initiative focused on the

environmental technology sector

Non-membership organization

http://www.umweltcluster-nrw.de/

Responsible for Innovation

radar

The

Efficiency

Agency

Head of consulting

Agency focused on material and energy

efficiency

30 employees in six locations including

Duisburg.

http://www.ressourceneffizienz.de

The energy

Agency

Manager of the Department

for Information and Advice

Agency focused on energy efficiency

120 employees located in Düsseldorf,

Gelsenkirchen and Wuppertal.

http://www.energieagentur.nrw.de

The local

BDO in

Duisburg

Project manager

Business development support for all

kinds of companies

20 employees

http://www.gfw-duisburg.de/

Project manager

The local

BDO in Essen

Energy ,Water ,Environment

Sector responsible

Business development support for all

kinds of companies

30 employees

http://www.ewg.de

Step 4 - assessing support functions

Step four is focused on an assessment of the support functions in reference to eco-innovation. From

our experience, to have concrete results on how firms receive and perceive the support they get

from the intermediaries the analyst needs a high survey response rate. We designed a pilot study in

the region of Kalmar, Sweden to test our questions regarding firm’s satisfaction with intermediary

support functions. The response rate was quite low (upto 2%) and possible explanation could be that

survey was sent directly to the firms instead of through the intermediaries from which they receive

support. From this experience, we decided to ask the intermediaries themselves to send our

questions to their clients. With this alternative, we also faced some challenges regarding either to

the intermediary having already done a similar client satisfaction assessment in recent times, were

not open to outsider views on their support activities. We then concluded on the use of previous

assessments on the intermediaries by independent consultants. In this alternative, some of the

assessments were publicly available while others were from intermediaries willing to share with us.

With the reliance on secondary data, the analyst simply can get an overview of how the support

functions are perceived by firms including various implementation projects but not a deep and

coherent assessment since the surveys were undertaken by different organisations, for different

purposes. Notwithstanding, general questions in such a survey cover, the benefits and challenges

companies perceive from participating in support activities, the number of projects implemented

from support activities, and in some cases the monetary, material and energy savings from

eco-innovation projects implemented with the help of the intermediaries.

Step 5-recommendations

From our assessment, we concluded that most of the intermediaries we studied were focused on

modification and re-design in existing products and processes with at least a few of them also

interested in the creating and development of new innovations which challenge existing

organizational and institutional settings. Based on their support functions and also an assessment of

how they relate to the needs of firms and also eco-innovation specific needs, we developed a set of

practical recommendations for the intermediaries and also for policy making in general.

5

Conclusions and further research

This study develops and applies an approach to analyse the functions of intermediaries in

eco-innovation. The allure of this approach is that functions of intermediaries have a more direct

connection to firm’s ambition to develop, diffuse and adopt eco-innovation compared to the

configuration of intermediaries within a particular scope. The operationalization of the analytical

approach in region Scania, Sweden and North Rhine Westphalia sheds light on the methodological

choices and challenges an analyst should anticipate particularly when new to a case. However, like

any method, this analytical approach also has its limitations which should be considered and carefully

handled. For example, the analytical choices and delimitations can influence the outcomes of the

analyst and should be clarified for any reader. Finally the analytical approach and its application have

given us some relevant insights into the actions and activities of intermediaries in eco-innovation.

Public-owned intermediaries are supposed to complement the market where there are gaps in

support functions. What this implies is that, these intermediaries are not supposed to perform every

support function in the very first place. And in addition they also face resource limitations in terms of

personnel and financing which means that their support is often times general towards an entire

cluster than to the specific needs of individual firms. Furthermore, eco-innovation is quite a broad

concept in practise and several innovations could fit under this umbrella term and thus the support

functions are often of a general nature. In addition a function not performed by a particular

intermediary can be performed by the other and thus a missing actor might not be particularly

problematic in an innovation system compared to a missing function. A further research which could

be of particular interest to the innovation intermediary scholars is to build consensus and consolidate

the consolidation of support functions of intermediaries in eco-innovation as a follow up to this

analytical approach.

Comments

An extended abstract of this article was presented at the 18th Annual Interdisciplinary

Entrepreneurship Conference, November 13-14th, 2014, Oldenburg, Germany.

A full conference paper version of the article was also presented at the Global Cleaner Production

Conference, November 1-4, 2015, Barcelona, Spain.

6

References

Arrow, K.J., 1962. The economic implications of learning by doing. The review of economic studies,

155-173.

Bergek, A., Hekkert, M., Jacobsson, S., Markard, J., Sandén, B., Truffer, B., 2015. Technological

innovation systems in contexts: Conceptualizing contextual structures and interaction

dynamics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions.

Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., 2003. The emergence of a growth industry: a comparative analysis of the

German, Dutch and Swedish wind turbine industries, Change, transformation and

development. Springer, pp. 197-227.

Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., Rickne, A., 2008. Analyzing the functional

dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research policy 37,

407-429.

Bleda, M., del Río, P., 2013. The market failure and the systemic failure rationales in technological

innovation systems. Research policy 42, 1039-1052.

Boon, W.P., Moors, E.H., Kuhlmann, S., Smits, R.E., 2011. Demand articulation in emerging

technologies: Intermediary user organisations as co-producers? Research policy 40, 242-252.

Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., Wagner, M., 2013. Sustainable innovation, business models and

economic performance: an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production 45, 1-8.

Cainelli, G., De Marchi, V., Grandinetti, R., 2015. Does the development of environmental innovation

require different resources? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner

Production 94, 211-220.

Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M., Rickne, A., 2002. Innovation systems: analytical and

methodological issues. Research policy 31, 233-245.

Carlsson, B., Stankiewicz, R., 1991. On the nature, function and composition of technological systems.

Journal of evolutionary economics 1, 93-118.

Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., del Río González, P., Könnöla, T., 2009. Eco-innovation: when sustainability

and competitiveness shake hands. Palgrave Macmillan Hampshire.

Coenen, L., Díaz López, F.J., 2010. Comparing systems approaches to innovation and technological

change for sustainable and competitive economies: an explorative study into conceptual

commonalities, differences and complementarities. Journal of Cleaner Production 18,

1149-1160.

Coenen, L., Suurs, R., van Sandick, E., 2010. Upscaling emerging niche technologies in sustainable

energy: an international comparison of policy approaches. Lars Coenen, Roald Suurs and

Emma van Sandick.

de Marchi, V., 2012. Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from

Spanish manufacturing firms. Research policy 41, 614-623.

del Río González, P., 2005. Analysing the factors influencing clean technology adoption: a study of the

Spanish pulp and paper industry. Business strategy and the environment 14, 20-37.

del Río, P., Bleda, M., 2012. Comparing the innovation effects of support schemes for renewable

electricity technologies: A function of innovation approach. Energy Policy 50, 272-282.

del Río, P., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., Könnölä, T., 2010. Policy Strategies to promote eco-innovation: An

Integrated Framework. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14, 541-557.

del Río, P., Peñasco, C., Romero-Jordán, D., 2013. Distinctive features of environmental innovators:

an econometric analysis. Business strategy and the environment.

del Río, P., Unruh, G., 2007. Overcoming the lock-out of renewable energy technologies in Spain: the

cases of wind and solar electricity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11,

1498-1513.

Dewald, U., Truffer, B., 2011. Market formation in technological innovation systems—diffusion of

photovoltaic applications in Germany. Industry and Innovation 18, 285-300.

Edquist, C., 2005. Systems of innovation. Perspectives and challenges., in: Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.,

Nelson, R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook on Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.

181-408.

Fichter, K., Fuad-Luke, A., Klofsten, M., Bergset, L., Bienkowska, D., Clausen, J., Geier, J., Hjelm, O.,

Kanda, W., Kuisma, M., Cabrera Viancha, P., 2013. Support Systems for Sustainable

Entrepreneurship and Transformation (SHIFT). Work Package 1: Theoretical Foundation.,

Berlin, Linköping, Aalto: SHIFT.

Foxon, T., Andersen, M.M., 2009. The greening of innovation systems for eco-innovation–towards an

evolutionary climate mitigation policy, DRUID Summer Conference-Innovation, Strategy and

Knowledge.

Foxon, T.J., Gross, R., Chase, A., Howes, J., Arnall, A., Anderson, D., 2005. UK innovation systems for

new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures. Energy Policy

33, 2123-2137.

Hekkert, M.P., Negro, S.O., 2009. Functions of innovation systems as a framework to understand

sustainable technological change: Empirical evidence for earlier claims. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change 76, 584-594.

Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlmann, S., Smits, R.E.H.M., 2007. Functions of

innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change 74, 413-432.

Hjelm, O., 2011. The SIMPLE methodology for supporting innovations in the field of renewable

energy and energy efficiency, World Renewable Energy Congress – Sweden, 8–13 May, 2011,

Linköping, Sweden : Volume 10: Policy Issues. Linköping University Electronic Press.

Horbach, J., 2008. Determinants of environmental innovation—New evidence from German panel

data sources. Research policy 37, 163-173.

Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35,

715-728.

Jacobsson, S., 2008. The emergence and troubled growth of a ‘biopower’innovation system in

Sweden. Energy Policy 36, 1491-1508.

Jacobsson, S., Bergek, A., 2004. Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological

systems in renewable energy technology. Industrial and corporate change 13, 815-849.

Jacobsson, S., Johnson, A., 2000. The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical

framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy 28, 625-640.

Jaffe, A.B., Newell, R.G., Stavins, R.N., 2005. A tale of two market failures: Technology and

environmental policy. Ecological Economics 54, 164-174.

Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Turkenburg, W.C., 2005. Global experience curves for wind farms. Energy

Policy 33, 133-150.

Kanda, W., Hjelm, O., Bienkowska, D., 2014. Boosting eco-innovation: The role of public support

organizations, XXV ISPIM Conference on Innovation for Sustainable Economy and Society,

Dublin, June 8-11, 2014. .

Kemp, R., 1996. The transition from hydrocarbons. The issues for policy. Models of Sustainable

Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 151-175.

Keskin, D., Diehl, J.C., Molenaar, N., 2013. Innovation process of new ventures driven by

sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 45, 50-60.